Look, I just did a little hypothetical exercise to show what types of 9-player rosters could be built using the current players on DJP, Yoda, Max and Prince's teams when we pool them all together and do a 4-team pre-draft.

I tried to build them rather evenly in terms of youth/experience, pitching/hitting and positionally. This is what I got.

I'm suggesting it be 9 because of the new pooled keepers system. There won't be a non-contender among the league anymore. Look at the hypothetical rosters I drew up as an example (http://draftcountdown.com/forum/show...7&#post3432587) of how that system brings the 12 owners much closer in quality.

I'm not entirely sure what we're doing with the bottom teams anyway. How many picks will they have until we all start picking again?

Yoda and Prince, along with whoever is appointed to take over Max and DJP's teams will hold a separate draft before the full league draft. They'll do snake-style selections of all of the players on their collective end-of-season rosters.

Then after they've selected their "keepers" from that pool of players, the rest of them will go back into the full league draft. So if we get 9 keepers apiece, then their pre-draft will be 36 picks. Then we do the regular draft like we always do, only there will be more good players than last year available since we're decreasing from 12 to 9 keepers each.

There are huge benefits of having the bottom 4 teams pool their players:
1) Those four teams can improve significantly without requiring the other 8 of us to dismantle the core of our teams significantly.
2) DJP's team that he gave up was loaded with keepers. His team would have been very, very appealing for some new owner to take over, while Max's team was devoid of good players. This way, all four of the bottom teams will share in the wealth of DJP's roster while also getting a sort of fresh start at competitiveness.
3) The two new owners that will be appointed won't be taking over a team that they had no hand in assembling and therefore should be more invested.

I see. Honestly I don't really see the need to go to 9. I understand why you would, since your team is stacked and deep as hell, but I don't see the argument for anyone else. I vote 8. League needs all the balance it can get.

I see. Honestly I don't really see the need to go to 9. I understand why you would, since your team is stacked and deep as hell, but I don't see the argument for anyone else. I vote 8. League needs all the balance it can get.

I wasn't the only person suggesting more than 8. D wanted 10.

The entire reason why we are dropping down from 12 keepers was to help rescue the bottom third of this league from complete non-competitiveness. Months back when we tentatively said it'd be 8, there was resistance from several people about dropping that low.

I've now devised an even more effective system to correct the problem we have. Those bottom 3 teams will each have 2-3 legitimate studs and quality depth. If they follow up by hitting on enough picks in the full league draft, then anything is possible.

I'm saying 9 keepers (instead of 8 plus a prospect slot, as we had at one time settled on).

I say 9 + 1 prospect slot. Through the years this league has always placed a value on developing our prospects. Now that's down the drain because the bottom 4 teams suck and we're trying to fix them?

I'm not against trying to fix them at all. I think Xio's idea to pool them is genius. But going into this season with one train of thought, having our draft and then playing... and then midway through flipping the script from 12 to 8 keepers was not a fair solution for all. It was purely for the benefit of the lower teams.

Now with this new fix, I think that changes things again. Do we still have to keep it at 8 in order for the bad teams to "catch up"? I feel they are catching up with this fix. Changing the keeper rule from 8 + 1 prospect to 9 makes no difference in the world.

All I'm suggesting is making it 9 + 1 keeper instead of 8 + 1 keeper. Or make the +1 prospect an option. You don't have to do it, but you can. Doing it means you finish the draft sooner by one round. I don't like the idea of doing it and forfeiting your 1st round pick. That's just way too much "kindness" for helping the sucky teams and "punishment" for the better teams.

My only real issue is that there do seem to be a lot of changes without any real consensus. I'm not blaming Xio for that really, but there shouldn't be large changes without a majority consensus.

I don't think there have been any large changes.

The pooled prospect thing doesn't effect you, me, GF and D (and let's face it, Jug, KCJ, Brody and Yo are almost always silent in these discussions). Yoda and Prince signed off on the idea since it involves them.

We had tentatively decided to draw back to 8 keepers a couple months ago before I concocted an idea that was much more effective at improving competitiveness.

We never get a consensus because no one follows this thread well enough. I'm guilty of throwing a lot of ideas against the wall to see how people respond, but nothing has been settled to this point other than that we'll have the pooled keeper draft for the bottom third.

IF we use a prospect slot, the player must qualify as an MLB rookie for 2014.

The reason I oppose it is because it would be instituted without advance notice for everyone to have concerned themselves with having such a prospect. Additionally, I think if we just say 9 keepers of any kind, then we can avoid worrying about who qualifies as a prospect. Dropping to just 8 keepers is more extreme than necessary given that we've fixed the problem of competitiveness. Using 9 keepers would still represent a large drop from the 12 we had this year and the 15 we had the year before that.

My only real issue is that there do seem to be a lot of changes without any real consensus. I'm not blaming Xio for that really, but there shouldn't be large changes without a majority consensus.

This was in place before the "Pooling" decision. Xio said he thought changes should occur since that fix was implemented. So he suggested 9 vs 8+1. I'm not seeing a big difference though there is a very slight one.

This was in place before the "Pooling" decision. Xio said he thought changes should occur since that fix was implemented. So he suggested 9 vs 8+1. I'm not seeing a big difference though there is a very slight one.

The difference is that it's easier to just say 9 keepers. Also, if there's a separate "prospect" distinction, that throws a wrench into the 4-team pooled keeper draft. They are abandoning their entire teams. 9 keepers is just a cleaner and simpler way of doing things.

Yo wouldn't be able to keep Jurickson as a prospect, you wouldn't be able to keep Puig as a prospect, etc. It's not something worth the added complication. That's why I just say to make it 9 and you can keep a prospect among those 9 if you choose.